The URL can be used to link to this page

10-16-96 PCa \ t W. W. Mus Realty, Inc. ` C lop Retail Real Estate Specialists Suite 112 • 5100 Eden Avenue • Minneapolis, MN 55436 • (612) 922-2560 • FAX September .18, M6 Elaine Beatty Clerk/Zoning Administrator City of Otsego 8899 Nashua Avenue N.E. Elk River MN 5533 At your recent suggestion we are writing this letter to prompt discussion at the next meeting of the Zoning & Planning Committee. We would like guidance prior to the application process for rezoning and plating of a parcel located on the property owned by Mary Dare.. We are working with a company desiring to locate a parking building in this area to accommodate school buses. We are advised that the facility will not conduct any servicing or refueling of the buses ---strictly parking. The building is anticipated to be approximately 60 X 150 and would be located on 4 + acres of land which would accommodate a septic and drainage system. The first choice is to locate the facility in the Northeast corner of the Govt. Lot 2, Section 14, as approximated on the attached sketch. We do understand that this property is in the 100 year flood plane as well as being the area designated as Wild & Scenic.. It is our opinion that this is a permitted use and would be a good use of the space. The prospect knows that a pole building is not satisfactory in this area.. A second, but not as satisfactory an option, would be a location on the West side of 101 in the area designated as MRD Commercial Park, Second Addition in Outlot A, preferably South of what is to be designated as Block 1 on the attached sketch. This company currently transports many Otsego school children. We available for more detailed discussion and would appreciate being informed as to the present thinking of the Zoning & Planning Committee. Sincerely. QWJ. es W. Ladner Klus Realty chments MOCA�Member of ■ �� International Council 1"O'KV of Shopping Centers Site Selection 0 Asset Management • Investment Property Brokerage • Property Management �• r I Y / • I 1$ � \ Y •sj, Y vie ,�G:\ � .. Pym• 4��. of W a 81 W112 mu— 1 Y o l J ! o 1: Is C', Of Z7 'ON -_, '3'N 3AV HSISlUYJ i VMHOIH I.1W!)O:) ? 11011im � B ON ld'!1! !.`JM •!O . 1HOM • i •/� w ..� •. •/i Ir r r w w� . J 19 3q I r Id 3 ymuj �\ J O In � � /'' ... . ... ... . Mississippi River OCT -10-1996 14:53 NAC 612 595 9837 P.02iO4 NFtNc MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY FLANNINO - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis 10 October 1996 Otsego - Dare Property 176.08 This memorandum is written in response to the Wally Mus letter dated 18 September 1996 which is referenced on the 16 October Planning Commission agenda. The letter requests that the Planning Commission provide some guidance as to the acceptability of locating a bus garage (warehouse) upon the Mary Dare property (either east or west of Highway 101). In consideration of this proposal, the following comments are offered: "� Site East of Highway 101 • The comprehensive plan suggests residential use of the area. Thus, an amendment to the Land Use Plan would be necessary to accommodate the proposed use. • The wild and scenic provisions applicable to the site (subdistrict 3 standards) do not list commercial/industrial uses either as "permitted" or "conditionally" allowed. As such, an amendment to the wild and scenic provisions would also be necessary. • A maximum 25 percent impervious surface coverage requirement is imposed within subdistrict C of the wild and scenic provisions (applicable to site). Such standard is typically difficult for commercial/industrial uses to achieve. Site West of Highway 101 • The comprehensive plan suggests highway commercial use of the property (see attached Exhibit A). Further, the comprehensive plan identifies the area in which 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416 PHONE (512-59S-96340 FAX 1512-595-9837 OCT -10-1996 14:53 IAC 612 595 9837 P.03iO4 the Dare property lies as a "primary retail center". In this regard, the proposed "warehouse" use (in this location) does not appear to be consistent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan. As a result, an amendment to the Land Use Plan may be necessary to accommodate the proposed use. Neither the B-2, Highway Commercial or B-3, General Business Zoning District make an allowance for "warehouse" uses. The City's B -W, Business Warehousing District does, however, list warehousing as a permitted use. If such use is viewed as desirable (and the necessary plan amendment is approved) the B -W zoning designation would likely be applied. As noted previously, this matter is scheduled for discussion at the forthcoming 16 October Planning Commission meeting. pc: Elaine Beatty Andy MacArthur Wally Klus OCT -10-1996 14:54 NRC Otsego, Minnesota 1000' 0 X500' 2500' rw W�74 SEPTEMBER 5999 "M TIN MAI r ra hANN" rwvua OMIT &W MCVW bT K Wfa rKr.NKC= K^6una- KTs Aft 2/0~. Primary -�. Retail Center Secondary Retail Center Restricted Retail Center /HC 151 612 595 9837 P.04iO4 Planning District 4 PROPOSED LAND USE A ..- Agricultural. LD. - Low Density Residential MD - Medium Density Residential. HD r High Density Residential NC .- Neighborhood Commercial HC • Highway Commercial 1 - industrial P - Park/Public Facility NATURAL. FEATURES' El - Floodplain/Wetlands ®- Steep Slopes. Tree Massing • • • 0 Wild and Scenic District Boundary Map illustrates approximate locations -subject to detailed review at time of proposed development PREPARLD 13Y: Associated Consultants, Inc. EXHIBIT A TOTAL P.04 NNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis DATE: 30 September 1996 RE: Otsego - Natus Accessory Building CUP FILE NO: 176.02 - 96.22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background ! Michael and Gwen Natus have requested a conditional use permit to allow the construction ' of more than one detached accessory structure upon their 2.5 acre property located east of O'Brian Avenue, between 85th and 87th Streets. Specifically, the Natus' wish to construct a second detached accessory structure (660 square foot garage) upon their property. According to the Zoning Ordinance, no building permit shall be issued for more than one detached private garage or accessory structure for each single family dwelling except by conditional use permit. The subject property is zoned R-2, Residential Immediate Urban Service (Large Lot). Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Site Plan 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 . PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 Recommendation Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow more than one detached accessory building for a detached single family use subject to the following conditions: 1. A site plan, based on a certificate of survey, is submitted. Such plan shall be drawn to scale and accurately illustrate all site structures, including the proposed garage. 2. A building elevation(s) of the proposed accessory structure is submitted which specifies structure height. The proposed structure shall comply with applicable height requirements. 3. The proposed accessory structure is not to be utilized for home occupation, commercial related activities, or the keeping of animals. 4. The proposed accessory structure match the principal building in color. 5. Drainage and utility easements are provided as may be recommended by the City Engineer. 6. A determination is made by the Building Inspector that the accessory building satisfy applicable building type and material requirements. 7. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS CUP Review Criteria. The City's Zoning Ordinance stipulates that no building permit shall be issued for more than one detached accessory structure for a single family dwelling, except by conditional use permit. In recognition of the site's existing detached accessory structure, approval of a conditional use permit is necessary to accommodate the applicant's request to construct a 660 square foot detached garage. According to Section 20-16-4.1-1 of the City Zoning Ordinance, a conditional use permit for an accessory storage structure may only be granted provided that: 1. There is a demonstrated need and potential for continued use of the structure and the purpose stated. 2 2. In the case of residential uses, no commercial or home occupation activities are conducted on the property. This prohibition shall include the storage of materials and equipment which are unrelated to the on-site residential use and activity. 3. The building has an evident re -use or function related to the principal use. 4. The accessory building shall be maintained in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent uses and does not present a hazard to public health, safety, and general welfare. 5. The provisions of Section 20-4-21 of the Ordinance shall be considered and a determination made that the proposed activity is in compliance with such criteria (listed below). a. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). d. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. e. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. g. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. Building Use. The CUP review criteria states that there should be a demonstrated need for continued use of the structure and the stated purpose. Considering that the proposed garage is to be used for the storage of the applicant's vehicles which are currently stored outdoors, there appears to be a demonstrated need for the continued use of the structure. In accordance with ordinance requirements, the structure may not be used for home occupation/commercial related activities or the keeping of animals. 3 Building Type. According to Section 20-16-4.G of the Zoning Ordinance, the same or suitable quality exterior finish building materials (as determined by the Building Inspector) shall be used in all accessory buildings over 150 square feet as in the principal building. The applicants have not specified specific exterior finish materials to be utilized on the - proposed garage. As a condition of CUP approval, a determination should be made by the City Building Inspector that such structure complies with applicable building type and material requirements. Additionally, it is recommended that siding used on the proposed accessory building be of a color which matches the single family dwelling. It should be specifically recognized that the ordinance prohibits pole -type building construction in residential zoning districts. Existing Accessory Buildings. According to the submitted site plan, a 219 square foot detached accessory building (single stall garage) currently exists in the subject site's rear yard area. Following construction of the proposed garage, a total of 879 square feet of accessory storage space will exist upon the property. Setbacks. According to Section 20-16-4.6 of the ordinance, the proposed accessory building must not lie closer than ten feet from any lot line, occur upon a required easement, or within a required side yard. As noted on attached Exhibit C, the proposed accessory building would like ± 25 feet from the subject property's northern property line and is well within applicable setback requirements. Building Height. According to Section 20-16-4.F of the Zoning Ordinance, an accessory building within an R-2 Zoning District may not exceed 16 feet in height except by conditional use permit. As a condition of CUP approval, a building elevation should be submitted which illustrates compliance with the maximum height standard. Easements. Section 21-7-15 of the Subdivision Ordinance stipulates that 10 foot drainage and utility easements should be provided along all lot lines. As a condition of CUP approval, drainage and utility easements should be established as may be required by the City Engineer. Access. The proposed accessory building is to receive its access via an existing curb cut from O'Brian Avenue. Such access is considered acceptable. M Screening. According to CUP criteria, the proposed use must be judged to be compatible with surrounding uses. Considering that the proposed accessory building setback is more than double that required by ordinance (10 feet versus 25 feet proposed), and that the garage is not of a size to produce scale conflicts in the neighborhood, the structure is not anticipated to impose any adverse impacts. Submission Requirements. While the submitted site plan does generally convey the location of the proposed garage and other site features, the submission of a scaled site plan (based on a certificate of survey) will need to be provided as a condition of building permit issuance. CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Jerry Olson Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak Michael and Gwen Natus 5 iii 111 !I -. -; EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION r Q� 7 5 4 A, 9 G 8 V i�1716 -OTD 20 21 N.E. 90th STREET I,m Ila» pao #,ow /,e+o i,ow ,wage #tole #tole 1 a 7 6 5$ 4 3 OTSEGO ACRES 2nd =ADDITI N W R R R 2 3 2= 1 OUTtAT A Z W e••a A z 1 �a-3e OUTLAY F pOte Q N.E. 89th ST. eas2� flow 4 1 OMc;O A 3 R a+a R R � R 3 "'~30 ACRES 1st ems, 3. a O 10 ti 11 § 12 13 14 G 15 s 6807—w #toes �] ADDITION .eee-3o 5 0/ fa,o U #026 /�+,• wm 0130 lSuo #ileo /mte O 1 J0 #wa Mao Haw hoax #w,e /mw 9 #m0e 8 Iian 7 pow 6 Im00 5 #:o.o 4 ! 6 5 3 2 1 Lw Z 11st DDITION IOTS�G04 ACRES „e,e""'° 5 3 , N.E. 88th ST. _ 4 14 13 12: ill 10j 9 8 7 6$ 5-9 4 g R 3 a Y 2 3783-30es-�o li.! Q Ota � #50" AaYJe 11766-315 P130p120 pilo #3100 3' Pow P- Ike PON) f— ------ polo9710-301 3 Z 1 flop f� f20,e 5 l2e.e #20" #io.o # Q 12011 2 3 4 6 7 8 'o 1 b 2 , #Zol x 000-30 N.E. 87th ST. 5� (# R ,»0 17 #114* ptso i G``Q 2 031 16 15 13 12 !01+01 .., 14021 L1Jiv IT�€»� Q #tib ! #„m f,„e 4 #a,, uet-ao :::::: :.••:.:. flow pow #tow #,070 a #10” p0 S #tete Q, 2 3 4 R 5 e R 7 3 8 . 3 --------------------------------- N.E. 85th STREET ------------------------------ '03 #tot4 w 1e #,010 EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATI EXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis DATE: 2 October 1996 RE: Otsego - Kienitz Accessory Building CUP FILE NO: 176.02 - 96.23 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Terry and Jean Kienitz have submitted a request to construct a 1,456 square foot detached accessory building (garage) upon their 4.6 acre property located south of County Road 39 and west of Odean Avenue. To accommodate the proposal, the following approvals are necessary: 1. Conditional use permit to allow more than 2,000 square feet of accessory storage space associated with a detached single family use. 2. Conditional use permit to allow more than one detached accessory building associated with a detached single family use. Currently, ± 1,000 feet of accessory storage space exists upon the property in the form of a two stall attached garage and two detached accessory buildings. The applicants intend to utilize the proposed accessory building to store various personal equipment currently stored outdoors (i.e., tractor, boat, etc.). The subject site is zoned R-2, Residential Immediate Urban Service (Large Lot). 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 5 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Site Location Exhibit B: Detailed Site Location Exhibit C: Site Plan Recommendation Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow. 1) more than 2,000 square feet of accessory storage space; and 2) more than one detached accessory building associated with a detached single family dwelling. Approval is, however, contingent upon the fulfillment of the following conditions: 1. A determination is made by the United Power Association (UPA) that the existing accessory building encroachment within the UPA power line easement) complies within applicable National Electrical Code requirements. 2. The proposed accessory building is not used for home occupation/commercial related activities or the keeping of animals. , 3. A building elevation (or elevations) is submitted which demonstrates compliance with City building height, type, and material requirements. 4. The proposed accessory building match the site's principal building in color. 5. Drainage easements are provided as may be recommended by the City Engineer. 6. One of the two existing driveway access points to County Road 39 is eliminated. 7. To minimize adverse impacts upon the adjacent easterly property, vehicular access to the proposed accessory building be provided from the west rather than the north. 8. Comments from other City staff. ISSUES ANALYSIS CUP Review Criteria. As noted previously, the applicants have requested a conditional use permit to allow: 1) more than 2,000 square feet of accessory storage space upon the subject property; and 2) more than one detached accessory building. 2 According to Section 20-16-4.1 of the City Zoning Ordinance, a conditional use permit for an accessory storage structure may only be granted provided that: 1. There is a demonstrated need and potential for continued use of the structure and the purpose stated. 2. In the case of residential uses, no commercial or home occupation activities are conducted on the property. This prohibition shall include the storage of materials and equipment which are unrelated to the on-site residential use and activity. 3. The building has an evident re -use or function related to the principal use. 4. The accessory building shall be maintained in a manner that is compatible with the adjacent uses and does not present a hazard to public health, safety, and general welfare. 5. The provisions of Section 20-4-2.17 of the Ordinance shall be considered and a determination made that the proposed activity is in compliance with such criteria (listed below). a. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. . b. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. C. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). d. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. e. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.. F. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. g. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. 3 Existing Accessory Storage Space. Currently, a total of approximately 1,008 square feet of accessory storage space exists upon the subject property, as summarized below: Square Footage Attached Two Stall Garage 600 square feet Wood Shed (East) 240 square feet Wood Shed (West) 168 square feet TOTAL 1,008 square feet Including the proposed accessory building, approximately 2,464 square feet of accessory space would exist upon the subject property. All existing accessory buildings are in good structural condition and well kept. As noted upon the submitted site plan, the wood shed located on the eastern portion of the property lies within a United Power Association (UPA) easement. As a condition of CUP approval, a determination should be made by UPA that such encroachment complies with applicable National Electrical Code requirements. Building Use. The CUP review criteria states that there should be a demonstrated need for continued use of the structure and the stated purpose. -Considering that the proposed garage is to be used for the storage of the applicant's personal vehicles and equipment (which are currently stored outdoors), there appears to be a demonstrated need for the continued use of the structure. In accordance with Ordinance requirements, the structure may not be used for home occupation/commercial related activities or the keeping of animals. Building Type. According to Section 20-16-4.G of the Zoning Ordinance, the same or suitable quality exterior finish building materials (as determined by the Building Inspector) shall be used in all accessory buildings over 150 square feet as in the principal building. As a condition of CUP approval, a building elevation (or elevations) should be submitted which demonstrates compliance with applicable building type and material requirements. It should be specifically noted that pole type accessory buildings in residential zoning districts are specifically prohibited by the Ordinance (Section 20-16-4.G). To ensure structure compatibility, it is recommended that the proposed accessory building be of a color which matches the site's principal structure. Setbacks. According to Section 20-16-4.6 of the Ordinance, the proposed accessory building must not lie closer than two feet to any lot line, occur upon a required easement or in a required side yard. As noted on the submitted site plan (Exhibit C), the proposed accessory building would lie + 15 feet from the subject site's eastern property line and ± CI 170 feet from the County Road 39 right-of-way. Thus, the proposed garage meets applicable setback requirements. Frontage Road. As shown on attached Exhibit C, a segment of the County Road 39 frontage road terminates at the subject property's western property line. According to the City Engineer, an easterly extension of such frontage road is not at this time recommended. Building Height. According to Section 20-16-41 of the Zoning Ordinance, an accessory building within an R-2 Zoning District may not exceed 16 feet in height, except as allowed by conditional use permit. As a condition of CUP approval, a building elevation should be submitted which demonstrates compliance with the maximum height standard. Easements. As required by the City Subdivision Ordinance (Section 21-7-15), drainage and utility easements have been established along all lot lines. Additional drainage easements should be provided as may be recommended by the City Engineer. Access. As shown on attached Exhibit C, the existing residence receives its access via two driveways from County Road 39 (via a "horseshoe" type driveway). Consistent with a Comprehensive Plan policy of limiting access to high volume roadways, and recommendations of the City Engineer and Wright County Highway Department, one of the two driveway access points to County Road 39 be eliminated. Screening. According to CUP evaluation criteria, the proposed use must be judged to be compatible with surrounding uses. As shown on the submitted site plan, the proposed garage is to lie 15 feet from the adjacent easterly property. To ensure compatibility with the adjacent easterly residence, it is recommended that vehicle access to the proposed garage be provided from the west (as opposed to the north). CONCLUSION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this report. PC: Elaine Beatty Jerry Olson Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak Wayne Fingalson Terry and Jean Kienitz 5 O a z 0 EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATIO _ L Imo• 1� w>wa v - •.1 2 1 M• 2 �CREs . 3rd /1DD OUNILAT zo 2 7'� z —• „ - ,„`•_ Al _ ._."__"_ _ 049 1 ,/ -j--- --- -_ --------- - ------ - ----- -- ----- 0S - --_- — �---. .—. 'r ---.�_ -----------------------------I _ . g4th +— r» — — — -- — — �-I - — A r—w. Cl a.. ' s 4 , S ..,,. ,r .�,� 2 j > < .>r. rsw R >t t m I` , 2 a 3 Ir n•+ I` 3 nn. G w. 1 CpU 0 fwo ( r,W S i 94th s R i 7 1 9 > fw>• N 1--...,,�. ' I••w GREET N.E- 3 1 O x P— IX in � �a 4045 i .>r>. ^'- PRKW��D 2 . Fu7.. I 20• 0 i { / 2 •\ �3 too &I---�s a�*•_\1 ,g� O�2 / 12 o• Y k:y S n i ; a :•:: ? i t ad C STREET uua• : W� 3 i 2<.` R R R R F 1 t_ 1 O J I 3 2 1 ) f,w Id 4 1a•w ,• ' . :'< G� 3 � F••• l,w /,u. F.. �R1• O/G Is 0 20 v;<`'.!:•ry. ° 1 1631-7o i 2 I 91 st 13 1 21 22 23 24 w /lcaxoo Zx12 1 IN I j 10 ' I _ G I n>••�\�V ra-a �j .,.«.1.6 i {o•o-x0 1, W02 W o N.E. ,;; z 1 F.• w,w \ 4 Mw 4 3 2 41 > I 1 z�a ; 3 1 7 {•Sox 1�O g 8 \ , />•+ f,•w laar i � {ozx-So TLOT D 1 i N.E. 90th STREET ! r„. w+. ,� r•. I `4 w z _ ' ;l•^r CJ lun i 4 �! 2 S I 0 7 1. 8 I z s 1 Q� > ACRES 2nd 6DITI Nt W° 7 e s 4 3 2 I - 3 o fes^ P O I I I r.0-1 N.E. - 89th i SIRE= 3 1 2- I , OUTLOT I A z --•• EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATIC 3/4 LAh dUL. I IN )Uu l n • DENOTES IRON PIPE FOUND FACE OF POWER POLE ' ELEV = 901.43 \ 00 s� N vnp/�\ O 09 00 e 9shz r9 1 } g0\ 90\0 11•eb pp,,,,�, � 90\ 6F D x e \0 �e0 � • TELL 5 6} 110 0.y6 f p e� 114359 w eye' r NOTE. 9 Idb g �� x i Set Loth Along 15 Ft. Setback A 1 e9ye xe9ti3 SPNC f 59 ! / ey9�k Line For Garage Construction '8l1 llSE G 88.J 1 g9pjo PROP ®e� A INV- .y GAR. SET 'RH' ` r \ I y few' k 8es 887.9 r �� 1 9 3 1 (� W000� LL e ! f SHED Lot xee1 ee3WOOD nl SHED i1 tn ' Centerline Of 150 Ft. UPA I Transmission Line Esm t 1' ►� ` As Desc'd In Doc. No. 254817. 1- 1 _ t 0 100 200 300 1 � I 10 Ft. Drainage & SCALE IN FEET 1' / Utility Easements fi S89 °50'38" W 263.97 r. ! ,, I I rI ! ei r ! ' EXHIBIT C - SITE PLAN I NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis / David Licht DATE: 26 September 1996 RE: Otsego - Frankfort Territory Rezoning FILE NO: 176.08 - 96.17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background In conformance with Ordinance requirements, the recently annexed Frankfort Township territory has assumed an A-1 Agricultural Rural Service zoning designation. Such zoning designation is not, however, consistent with the various zoning designations which were applied to the same property under the jurisdiction of Frankfort Township. Under Frankfort jurisdiction, the area north of the Crow River and east of Highway 101 held agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial zoning designations. To restore the development rights previously provided under Frankfort Township, the City of Otsego has initiated a rezoning of the property from the current A-1 designation to various zoning designations (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial) which most closely parallel those previously applied. Attached for reference: Exhibit A: Site Location Exhibit B: Frankfort Township Zoning Map/Land Use Plan Exhibit C: B-2 District Uses Exhibit D: B-3 District Uses 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9637 Recommendation In considering the rezoning of the former Frankfort Township' territory, an initial determination should be made as to whether the City's B-2, Highway Business or B-3, General Business zoning designation should be applied (to previously zoned commercial properties). Such determination is considered a policy matter to be determined by City officials. Based on the following review, our office recommends approval of the rezoning of the recently annexed Frankfort Township territory from A-1, Agricultural Rural Service to various designations which parallel those previously applied. Such rezoning action should, however, specify the commercial zoning district to be applied. ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Zoning. According to Section 20-50-4 of the Zoning Ordinance: All territory hereafter annexed to the City of Otsego which is not shown on the Zoning Map shall automatically upon annexation be classified within the A-1 District and shall be subject to all regulations, notations, references, and conditions as are applicable to said district until such time that a determination may be made as to the proper district classification for such territory and an amendment can be made to that effect. Based on the preceding provision, all recently annexed Frankfort lands hold an A-1 zoning designation and are afforded only the development rights provided by such district. Effect of Annexation. Of specific issue in this matter is the previous zoning applied to the recently annexed Frankfort Township territory. Under the jurisdiction of Frankfort Township, the land area in question included agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial designations (see Exhibit B). Thus, the recent annexation has altered the development rights previously available to many properties. Judgement Criteria. In consideration of all rezoning requests, Section 20-3-21 of the Ordinance directs the City Council and the Planning Commission to consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. Their judgement shall be based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. Because the lands in question are not specifically addressed within Otsego's Comprehensive Plan, a determination cannot be made that the proposed rezoning is consistent with such plan. As a rationale for such rezoning, however, the Frankfort Township Land Use Plan 'can serve as a basis for decision-making. As shown on Exhibit B, the Township's zoning map and Land Use Plan are identical. Thus, a basis for approval of the proposed rezoning is a finding that such action is consistent with the area's land use plan. District Comparison. An initial question to be addressed in the rezoning of the Frankfort territory is the applicability of Otsego's various zoning districts. The following is a listing of Frankfort Township zoning designations which previously existed in the area, and the City of Otsego's comparable zoning district standards. Such listing is intended to highlight possible inconsistencies in development rights. 3 Density Minimum Maximum Lot Width Lot Size Lot Size Agricultural Districts: Frankfort (A-1, General 1 per 40 1 acre 2.5 acres 200 feet Agriculture) Otsego (A-1, Agricultural 1 per 40 1 acre 2.5 acres 150 feet Rural Service) Residential Districts: Frankfort (R-1, Suburban --- 1 acre --- 170 feet Residential) Otsego (R-3, Residential --- 1 acre --- 150 feet Immediate Urban Service) 3 NOTE: See Exhibit B for zoning district boundaries As shown above, major differences between Frankfort's and Otsego's Zoning Ordinance provisions exist in the business districts where lot widths of 150 feet and 200 feet are applied. Generally speaking, however, the City of Otsego's Zoning Ordinance includes district provisions which are similar to those previously imposed in Frankfort Township. B-2/13-3 District Application. As part of the area rezoning consideration, a determination should be made whether the City's B-2, Highway Business or B-3, General Business designation should be applied. The B-2, Highway Business District is intended to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent high intensity commercial service activities. A listing of permitted and conditional uses allowed in the district is listed upon attached Exhibit C. While the B-2 District application may be consistent with the City's long term development objectives for the area, (as the area likely is not considered the "commercial center" of Otsego) its application would render several existing uses as non -conforming (i.e., furniture store). Alternatively, the City's B-3 District is intended to provide for high intensity commercial uses within the Central Business District and other intense commercial areas of the City. Generally speaking, the B-3 District is intended to be applied to the Highway 101 corridor 2 Minimum Lot Width Building Type Lot Size Business Districts: Frankfort (B-1, 1 acre 150 feet Maximum 50% exposed Business) metal on all sides Otsego (B-2, Highway 1 acre 200 feet Maximum 50% exposed Commercial and B-3, metal on all sides General Business) Industrial Districts: Frankfort (1-1, General 1 acre 150 feet Sides abutting streets and Industry) residential uses finished in wood, brick, stone, etc. Otsego (1-1, Limited 1 acre 150 feet Maximum 50% exposed Industrial) metal on all sides NOTE: See Exhibit B for zoning district boundaries As shown above, major differences between Frankfort's and Otsego's Zoning Ordinance provisions exist in the business districts where lot widths of 150 feet and 200 feet are applied. Generally speaking, however, the City of Otsego's Zoning Ordinance includes district provisions which are similar to those previously imposed in Frankfort Township. B-2/13-3 District Application. As part of the area rezoning consideration, a determination should be made whether the City's B-2, Highway Business or B-3, General Business designation should be applied. The B-2, Highway Business District is intended to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent high intensity commercial service activities. A listing of permitted and conditional uses allowed in the district is listed upon attached Exhibit C. While the B-2 District application may be consistent with the City's long term development objectives for the area, (as the area likely is not considered the "commercial center" of Otsego) its application would render several existing uses as non -conforming (i.e., furniture store). Alternatively, the City's B-3 District is intended to provide for high intensity commercial uses within the Central Business District and other intense commercial areas of the City. Generally speaking, the B-3 District is intended to be applied to the Highway 101 corridor 2 area between County Roads 39 and 42. A listing of permitted and conditional uses allowed in the B-3 District is provided on attached Exhibit D. While some question exists as to whether the B-3 District is within the City's long term development objectives for the area, such application is generally consistent with the current uses which exist in the area. As part of the City's consideration of the Frankfort territory rezoning, a determination should be made by City officials as to the most appropriate commercial zoning district application. CONCLUSION Considering that the City of Otsego's Zoning Ordinance includes zoning district designations which generally parallel those previously applied in Frankfort Township, our office recommends that the City approve a rezoning of the newly annexed properties to designations similar to those previously applied. PC: Elaine Beatty Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak 41 y I n EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION r � 1 *400,* .5 0 1 I=- x SCALE IN MILES �7 I A AGRICULTURAL / RURAL',> R EXISTING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL NEW SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ( PUBLIC WATER AVAILABLE OR CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLE ) C COMMERCIAL NOTE : APPLICABLE ZONING HIGHLIGHTEE INDUSTRIAL IN PARENTHESIS 1 P PUBLIC SP SEMI-PUBLIC EXHIBIT B - FRANKFORT TWP. ZONING MAP/LAND USE PLAN B-2, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT PERMITTED USES: • Adult use -accessory. • Animal hospitals and kennels. • Auto accessory store. • Barber shops. • Beauty parlors. • Commercial recreational uses. • Essential services. • Convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type and without motor fuel facilities). • Laundromat, self-service washing and drying. • Professional and commercial leased offices. • Governmental and public related utility buildings and structures. • Motels, motor hotels and hotels, provided that the lot contains not less than 500 square feet of lot area per unit. • Restaurants (not of the drive-in, convenience or drive-through type), cafes, on and off -sale liquor. • Private clubs or lodges serving food and beverages. CONDITIONAL USES: • Drive-in and convenience food establishments. • Commercial car washes. • Motor vehicle fuel sales, truck stops, auto repair -minor, tire and battery stores. • Convenience stores with gasoline. • Accessory retail. EXHIBIT C B-3, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PERMITTED USES: • Adult use -principal and accessory.. • Animal hospitals and kennels. • Auto accessory store. • Barber shops. • Beauty parlors • Commercial recreational uses. • Essential services. • Convenience grocery stores (not supermarket type and without motor fuel facilities). • Laundromat, self-service washing and drying. • Professional and commercial leased offices. • Governmental and public related utility buildings and structures. • Funeral homes and mortuaries. • Motels, motor hotels and hotels, provided that the lot contains not less than 500 square feet of lot area per unit. • Restaurants (not of the drive-in, convenience or drive-through type), cafes, on and off -sale liquor. • Private clubs or lodges serving food and beverages. • Antique or gift shop. • Amusement places (such as dance halls or roller rinks). • Animal clinics (with no overnight care). • Books, office supplies or stationary stores. • Bowling alleys, • Carpet, rugs and tile. • Coin and philatelic stores. • Coin and philatelic stores. • Copy service, but not including printing press or newspaper. • Costume, clothes rental. • Department and discount stores. • Dry cleaning including plant accessory heretofore, pressing and repairing. • Dry goods store. • Electrical appliance stores including incidental repair and assembly but not fabricating or manufacturing. • Employment agencies. • Finance companies. • Furniture stores. • Furriers when conducted only for retail trade on premises. • Garden supply stores. • Haberdasheries and ladies ready-to-wear. EXHIBIT D • Insurance sales, claims and branch offices. • Jewelry stores and luggage stores. • Leather goods and luggage stores. • Record - music shops. • Sewing machine sales and service. • Shoe stores. • Tailor shops. • Theaters, not of the outdoor drive-in type. • Toy stores. • Travel bureaus, transportation ticket offices. • Variety stores, 5 and 10 cent stores, and stores of similar nature. • Wearing apparel. CONDITIONAL USES: • Drive-in and convenience food establishments. • Commercial car washes. • Motor vehicle fuel sales, truck stops, auto repair -minor, tire and battery stores. • Convenience stores with gasoline. • Accessory retail. CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: The Otsego Planning Commission will conduct a Public Hearing on Wednesday, October 16, 1996, at 8 OOPM at the Otsego City Hall at 8899 Nashua Avenue NE, Otsego, NN, or as soon thereafter as time permits. The matter has been initiated by the Otsego City Council. Request is as follows: 1. Rezone certain portion of newly annexed Frankfort Territory from A-1, General Agricultural to designations similar to previous Zoning under Frankfort Township jurisdiction, (before the annexation). It is proposed that portions of the newly annexed Frankfort Territory have the following Zoning Designations (See Attached Exhibit A): EXISTING IN PROPOSED IN FRANKFORT OTSEGO AG DIST. A-I,General Agriculture A-1, Agricultural Rural Service RES.DIST. R-1, Suburban Residential R-3, Residential Immediate Urban Service BUS. DIST. B-1, Business IND. DIST. I-1, General Industry B-2, Hwy. Comm. or B-3, Gen.Bus. I-1, Limited Industrial All interested parties are invited to attend the Hearings to express their questions and concerns/comments. If you would like further information regarding the above described Hearing, please call the City of Otsego at 4414414 in advance of the meeting. CITY OF OTSECO- Elaine Beatty, Clerk/Zoning dm, Dated: 9/26/96 Publish: 10/2/96 - STAR NEWS Posted: 9/26/96 - Otsego City Hall Hearing: Oct. 16, 1996 8PM - P.C. Oct. 28, 1996 6:30PM - CC Faxed: 9/26/96 - Star News G-�27/91v SCALE IN MILES 1 AGRICULTURAL/ RURAL R ...: EXISTING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ;�1�>x NEW SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ( PUBLIC WATER AVAILABLE OR CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLE ) COMMERCIAL NOTE : APPLICABLE ZONING HIGHLIGHTED INDUSTRIAL '(Ir1> IN PARENTHESIS P PUBLIC SP SEMI-PUBLIC EXHIBITA - FRANKFORT TWP. ZONING MAP/LAND USE PLAN INC MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS COMMUNITY PLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH Otsego Mayor and City Council Otsego Planning Commission Bob Kirmis / David Licht 8 October 1996 sib f�DQy Otsego - Comprehensive Plan: Tactics Study 176.14 A primary element used to organize the pending Comprehensive Plan Update effort is what we term a "Tactics Study". Through an interview process, such study is intended to provide insight as to the various objectives and concerns of local decision -makers. Specifically, this objective would be achieved from individual or group interviews with the City Council and Planning Commission, staff and other individuals or groups which may provide valuable input. We would like to begin these "tactics" interviews the week of 28 October. Tentatively, we are suggesting the following two sessions at which interviews would be conducted: Wednesday, 30 October 3:00 - 7:00 PM Thursday, 31 October 3:00 - 7:00 PM If one of these dates is not workable, an alternative session could be scheduled for Thursday, 7 November. Due to a potential change in City Council membership, we would suggest that interviews on the above referenced dates be conducted only with those Council members not seeking re-election. Interviews with re-elected and possible new members would be conducted at a later, unspecified date. A representative of our office will be available at the forthcoming 14 October Council meeting and 16 October Planning Commission meetings to discuss the acceptability of the aforementioned interview dates. PC: Elaine Beatty 5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 554 1 6 PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 1995 - PAGE 6 Paul Geddcn, 4125 Maplewood, in St. Bonifacius, stated that ODNCEFTOFPUD-PRAMlELZK-q surface water floods their home, particularly in Spring, and is worse CONTINUED if there is a rapid thaw and a frozen culvert. His immediate concern is to resolve the surface water problem. He is in favor of the golf development, though concerned with the impact on the water problem. He would like to see the MCWD stay involved in this matter, whether the golf course is developed or not+ Councilmember Gerdes agreed this matter should be reviewed. Mayor Salazar agreed also. Herman Quaas, 725 Game farm Road No, objected to the length of the proposed road. Mr. Maple stated an egress onto Highway 7 was considered, however this was not in the best interest of public safety. Maple stated he would like to begin grading in June, and plant this fall. Gerdes moved and Tacheny seconded approval of the general Concept Plan, as submitted, for a Planned Unit Development, approximately 38 singly family lots with a 9 and 18 hole golf course, taking into account all the concerns as discussed. Motion carried Ayes 4 Nays 0. Mayor Salazar stated it is his recommendation to table this matter 1995 FEE SCHEDULE again, as there are a number of increases and he would like to see a cost analysis of these changes, with a line by line justification. Erickson explained that the fee schedule is a tool to keep property taxes down and watch out for the taxpayer, so the users of the services are paying for them, rather than the general taxpayer. Burn permits should be increased to cover the staff time for inspections. The sewer/water fund should be self supporting, so that the general fund is not supporting it. The sewer/water revenues should cover new equipment and system repairs. Erickson reported that no public comments have been offered in reference to the 1995 fee schedule. Mayor Salazar stated that neighbors have asked him about it. Councilmember Pond questioned what fee schedule is currently being used. Erickson stated the 1994 fee schedule is still effective. Pond suggested this matter be reviewed quickly, so the new fees will be effective. Mayor Salazar thinks fee increases should be looked at close and slowly. Bob Halvorson, 7901 Halstead, stated he would like to see staff justify these line item increases. Delores Jeanetta, Councilmember elect, stated she understands the City needs a reserve fund, however, is 50% fee increase necessary. Thomas Finks, 650 County Road 110 N, stated he would appreciate if the City be as conservative with their money, as he is with his own. Pond moved and Gerdes seconded to table discussion of the 1995 STORM SEWER LTIZIM CHARG't Fee Schedule and review Storm Sewer Utility Charges at the same time. Motion carried Ayes 4 Nays 0. Erickson explained that 51% of the abutting property owners have requested this street improvement. It is proposed that all property owners will be assessed the same amount, regardless of size of lot. 0 EXHIBIT M